[QUOTE=RB33;52169066]Communism is at its core a democracy. So you get to say what direction society takes. Still, imagine no rent, no healthcare bills, no need to get insurance, your basic necessities all taken care of, all you need to do is to focus on your life without worry.[/QUOTE]
it's a nice thought but i don't see it happening as long as humans are in charge of the means of production
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52169109]it's a nice thought but i don't see it happening as long as humans are in charge of the means of production[/QUOTE]
Would you rather fight who gets their own piece of production or would you rather be a guaranteed co-owner? Because if ownership isn't shared, many people will always be left out. Therefore, for them, the second option is preferable.
[QUOTE=RB33;52169141]Would you rather fight who gets their own piece of production or would you rather be a guaranteed co-owner? Because if ownership isn't shared, many people will always be left out. Therefore, for them, the second option is preferable.[/QUOTE]
what i want is irrelevant in a system where everyone has to participate and play by the same rulebook in order to function. not everyone is fully rational all the time, and there will always be people who seek power at the risk of themselves and others. the only way i can see people being placated enough to not have some people wanting to seize power is if everything were fully automated in a post-scarcity society, and even then i have doubts about that.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52169193]what i want is irrelevant in a system where everyone has to participate and play by the same rulebook in order to function. not everyone is fully rational all the time, and there will always be people who seek power at the risk of themselves and others. the only way i can see people being placated enough to not have some people wanting to seize power is if everything were fully automated in a post-scarcity society, and even then i have doubts about that.[/QUOTE]
See, there are limitations in place to keep people from trying to take more stuff than they have a right to. Also waiting for an utopian post-scarcity society is irresponsible, we need to act sooner rather than later.
[QUOTE=RB33;52169209]See, there are limitations in place to keep people from trying to take more stuff than they have a right to. Also waiting for an utopian post-scarcity society is irresponsible, we need to act sooner rather than later.[/QUOTE]
what kind of limitations and systems? are these limitations and systems strong enough to stop a group of determined people with guns?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52169215]what kind of limitations and systems? are these limitations and systems strong enough to stop a group of determined people with guns?[/QUOTE]
If a community doesn't have a police force to keep the community safe and rules respected, then that is pretty stupid. It's too much of an utiopian vision to disregard the need for police. But of course, the police is not the first line of defense against those taking more than they deserve. That's penalizing them and confiscating whatever breaks the commonly agreed upon limitations. Resources are to be shared, not someone hoarding it for themself.
[QUOTE=RB33;52169238]If a community doesn't have a police force to keep the community safe and rules respected, then that is pretty stupid. It's too much of an utiopian vision to disregard the need for police. But of course, the police is not the first line of defense against those taking more than they deserve. That's penalizing them and confiscating whatever breaks the commonly agreed upon limitations. Resources are to be shared, not someone hoarding it for themself.[/QUOTE]
what about when the police decide that they want to take more than their fair share? the police are the likely people to enforce penalties and confiscations on those who break the agreed-upon limitations, which means they necessarily have greater authority over others. what is stopping them besides their good conscious and moral obligations to their community from exerting that authority for their own gain?
i'm guessing the community democratically decides what the agreed upon limitations are, but what happens when they aren't able to reach a consensus? what if one voting bloc thinks they deserve more than the others legitimately due to thinking their work is more difficult? say the food producers unionize and demand higher compensation due to their belief that their work is more important than other producers. if they wanted to, they could effectively hold the rest of the community hostage by going on strike, only producing enough food to feed themselves. hell, i could see them paying off the police by giving them food in order to ensure their strike doesn't get broken up. now you've got a class of people with inherently more power over others due to the importance of their job and a police force working for them to keep that power.
[QUOTE=Scarabix;52168224][U]You're already one step into retardation if you insist that racist free speech should be tolerated[/U][/QUOTE]
Why stop at hate speech? I say go one step further and ban all forms of verbal abuse and any ideals promoting it. Would you agree or disagree?
[editline]30th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52169215]what kind of limitations and systems? are these limitations and systems strong enough to stop a group of determined people with guns?[/QUOTE]
As I said before, communism would require a trans humanistic or post humanistic society when technology is capable of creating a collective mind or a over mind. Fictional examples of a collective mind would be Deus ex Invisible war the Heilos ending. A over mind would be the omar from same game.
In either case, humanity would become a super organism. The only difference is one is a collective of minds melded together and the later is the erasure of many minds and allowance of one dominant mind to control the entire group.
[QUOTE]You just said it. What they believe in, they are fighting for different things. Their methods may be the same, but its important to understand the beliefs and where they stem from. Your analogies really don't help your argument at all [/QUOTE]
There this book titled "Lucifer principle" by howard bloom. In evolutionary terms, ideology is just an excuse to acquire resources and eliminate rivals for mates. Both ideas are designed for human mind of the same species, thus are structured the same to be appealing to to a certain mindset. How it occurs is expressed differently but the instincts and motivations are the same. A Marxist steals wealth and kills off his rivals. A jihadi kills off his rivalries and steals their wealth. Same action, same end result. It just a different excuse to do it and expresses it self differently.
So what is the INTRINSIC difference between the ideas and psychologies of people involved? Do not give me the aesthetic difference. That is irrelevant. Give me the intrinsic differences.
The only way they could be fighting for intrinsic different things is if they were vastly different sentient species, thus having emotions and drives that are incomprehensible to each other.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52169287]what about when the police decide that they want to take more than their fair share? the police are the likely people to enforce penalties and confiscations on those who break the agreed-upon limitations, which means they necessarily have greater authority over others. what is stopping them besides their good conscious and moral obligations to their community from exerting that authority for their own gain?
i'm guessing the community democratically decides what the agreed upon limitations are, but what happens when they aren't able to reach a consensus? what if one voting bloc thinks they deserve more than the others legitimately due to thinking their work is more difficult? say the food producers unionize and demand higher compensation due to their belief that their work is more important than other producers. if they wanted to, they could effectively hold the rest of the community hostage by going on strike, only producing enough food to feed themselves. hell, i could see them paying off the police by giving them food in order to ensure their strike doesn't get broken up. now you've got a class of people with inherently more power over others due to the importance of their job and a police force working for them to keep that power.[/QUOTE]
The police consist of the people and are appointed by them and their authority can be revoked at anytime. If one group thinks they are so superior than the rest, they're going to piss everyone else off and not receive support from the others. So it's better to keep working together, they can't survive on their own either. They can't bribe the police, since it's a moneyless society. The police will be among all the others being pissed off, because the food producers aren't doing their share of the work.
The problem I have with the Antifa movement is the same reason why we all laugh at people holding signs saying "end racism", or people signing a petition condemning discrimination. It's pointless because the vast majority of people are against racism or fascism as it is.
Creating a movement based solely in the combating of fascism without actually having a goal beyond combating fascism ends with you playing into their hands. You give them a target, and a pretty valid one. Either fascism fades from the public eye, and conversely so does antifa along with it, but nothing is ultimately changes and thus there's nothing stopping from it re-surging again later, or fascism grows in popularity as they can point to the antifa and say "these guys are dedicated to hating us an nothing else! we're the victims!".
If you want to combat fascism, actually stand by an alternative to it, and make it your advertising point. Anarchy, socialism, communism, fucking anything so long as you can stand by it and explain why this trumps fascism. Actually have not only a justification to fight, but something you can return to and build so that such a fight doesn't have to happen again.
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;52169962]The problem I have with the Antifa movement is the same reason why we all laugh at people holding signs saying "end racism", or people signing a petition condemning discrimination. It's pointless because the vast majority of people are against racism or fascism as it is.
Creating a movement based solely in the combating of fascism without actually having a goal beyond combating fascism ends with you playing into their hands. You give them a target, and a pretty valid one. Either fascism fades from the public eye, and conversely so does antifa along with it, but nothing is ultimately changes and thus there's nothing stopping from it re-surging again later, or fascism grows in popularity as they can point to the antifa and say "these guys are dedicated to hating us an nothing else! we're the victims!".
If you want to combat fascism, actually stand by an alternative to it, and make it your advertising point. Anarchy, socialism, communism, fucking anything so long as you can stand by it and explain why this trumps fascism. Actually have not only a justification to fight, but something you can return to and build so that such a fight doesn't have to happen again.[/QUOTE]
My point of view is there are different temperaments. One can share a same ideal but a different temperament. There the good temperament and then the temperament which fucks everything up for everyone else.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52169724]Why stop at hate speech? I say go one step further and ban all forms of verbal abuse and any ideals promoting it. Would you agree or disagree?
[editline]30th April 2017[/editline]
As I said before, communism would require a trans humanistic or post humanistic society when technology is capable of creating a collective mind or a over mind. Fictional examples of a collective mind would be Deus ex Invisible war the Heilos ending. A over mind would be the omar from same game.
In either case, humanity would become a super organism. The only difference is one is a collective of minds melded together and the later is the erasure of many minds and allowance of one dominant mind to control the entire group.
There this book titled "Lucifer principle" by howard bloom. In evolutionary terms, ideology is just an excuse to acquire resources and eliminate rivals for mates. Both ideas are designed for human mind of the same species, thus are structured the same to be appealing to to a certain mindset. How it occurs is expressed differently but the instincts and motivations are the same. A Marxist steals wealth and kills off his rivals. A jihadi kills off his rivalries and steals their wealth. Same action, same end result. It just a different excuse to do it and expresses it self differently.
So what is the INTRINSIC difference between the ideas and psychologies of people involved? Do not give me the aesthetic difference. That is irrelevant. Give me the intrinsic differences.
The only way they could be fighting for intrinsic different things is if they were vastly different sentient species, thus having emotions and drives that are incomprehensible to each other.[/QUOTE]
By simply labeling the methods that are the same does not make the people the same. You can label far left and far right nut jobs, but to fully understand those people you have to understand their beliefs and where they stem from. To combat racism for example you can lock a racist up but to combat the problem you have to target the root cause of the problem, targeting the ideology itself and what is causing and spreading it. Please do not give any more stupid analogies for example your analogy of a Marxist and a jihadi for that is just stupid. First of all the primary principles of Marxism isn't to "steal others wealth and kill off rivals", although these things may manifest themselves in a Marxist system, it is not comparable to a jihadi. Yeah you can use nature vs nurture argument and say everyone is the same under the shape society has molded them into but when we are talking about far right vs far left extremism these ideologies don't stem from the same things.
[QUOTE]To combat racism for example you can lock a racist up but to combat the problem you have to target the root cause of the problem[/QUOTE]
Correct. By focusing on the intrinsic traits of individuals and ignoring the delusions they spout (called ideals) I am focusing on the people who are prone to sadism no matter what they believe.
[QUOTE]First of all the primary principles of Marxism isn't to "steal others wealth and kill off rivals", although these things may manifest themselves in a Marxist system, it is not comparable to a jihadi.[/QUOTE]
Seems like someone didnt read howard bloom's book. I also will suggest eric hoffer "true believer" and "In praise of doubt" By Peter L. Berger
[QUOTE]You can label far left and far right nut jobs, but to fully understand those people you have to understand their beliefs and where they stem from[/QUOTE]
I view the ideas through of a term is it strucvtured to be a cult or not.
For example:
I am on the right side of history vs I am on the side of god.
Both are the same device to brain wash folks. It is known as a "fallible certainty"
Both give people who cannot handle a chaotic environment a sense of authority and control when they have no actual power in objective reality.
With this in mind, the structure is the same. You are however still stuck on the expressive difference. Talk to me when you understand the difference between intrinsic and expressive.
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;52169962]The problem I have with the Antifa movement is the same reason why we all laugh at people holding signs saying "end racism", or people signing a petition condemning discrimination. It's pointless because the vast majority of people are against racism or fascism as it is.
Creating a movement based solely in the combating of fascism without actually having a goal beyond combating fascism ends with you playing into their hands. You give them a target, and a pretty valid one. Either fascism fades from the public eye, and conversely so does antifa along with it, but nothing is ultimately changes and thus there's nothing stopping from it re-surging again later, or fascism grows in popularity as they can point to the antifa and say "these guys are dedicated to hating us an nothing else! we're the victims!".
If you want to combat fascism, actually stand by an alternative to it, and make it your advertising point. Anarchy, socialism, communism, fucking anything so long as you can stand by it and explain why this trumps fascism. Actually have not only a justification to fight, but something you can return to and build so that such a fight doesn't have to happen again.[/QUOTE]
It's not really pointless to have a movement that is directly opposed to fascism. Yes, most people are probably against racism or fascism as it is. The problem though is that this doesn't do any good in terms of combatting fascistic and racist movements; if we as opponents of these things are not organized, we can't effectively fight them whenever they start causing problems in the public sphere of life. And they frequently do. Here as of late (since the inaugaration), they've gotten braver than usual.
Antifa's goal is fine. The problem is how they go about achieving that goal. As I pointed out in another thread:
[QUOTE=Govna;52112723]You tone down the indiscriminate destructive acts first off. Targeted action is fine, and it's effective-- as any political scientist will tell you. No more of this rioting shit though and just running around destroying stuff for the sake of destruction. All that does is turn large swathes of people against you, and it gives your opponents ammunition.
Second, you change your presentation: dress/wardrobe, slogans, the banners and symbols you use, etc. The goal is intimidation, but running around in ski masks, all-black uniforms, etc. comes across as being too intimidating and aggressive. The ski masks and face covers I understand from at least a tactical point of view; it helps prevent identification if things get serious. If I had my pick, I'd like to see these people dress more like private security: not really wearing uniforms, but something along the lines of business attire (but practical attire, so if they have to fight they can and it won't impede their ability; no high-heels for women or skirts, for example). Also, no more of the anarchist/communist stuff. Not publicly. That draws too much attention, comes across as being edgy, and in general is just going to alienate people; stick to the stars and stripes, and present yourselves as being Americans with an all-American movement.
Third, start explaining to people why your movement is standing up against the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is literally made up of a bunch of fucking neo-Nazis. Thing is, most are smart enough to know better than to come right out and call themselves neo-Nazis, wave swastikas around, shout explicative slogans, etc. They know if they did, they'd be shut down and turned against in a heartbeat. This needs to be hammered home harder than anything by Antifa: "We're a *reaction* to these people. They're against America, everything that is American, and they will destroy us if given the chance. They advocate ethnic cleansing and genocide, they think anybody who isn't white is inferior to them, they will force radical Christianity on you if they have the opportunity, etc." Appeal to minorities shouldn't be terribly difficult, since the Alt-Right continually puts them down (and that's true whether we're talking Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, etc.).
Also, they're going to have to start being more savvy as far as the law, self-defense, community outreach, etc. are concerned. Law and self-defense matter when it comes to activities like this, especially when violence breaks out. The movement needs to be educated enough to be able to defend itself both in a physical sense as well as in a judicial one. Community outreach is very important here-- things like food drives, clothing drives, litter cleanup, holiday events, fun activities in general. You want to send the message that you're welcoming and compassionate people who genuinely care about their community, this country, and who just want to help out others. If you can do that, ordinary people will start to sympathize with you. If you do get into trouble, they'll be more likely to run to your aid and defend you and your cause, perhaps even join it.
Just a few thoughts. Nothing in-depth, more of a rough outline of some of the more obvious improvements that could be made. They really need to work on making themselves less of a niche thing and more of a mainstream movement; that's the overall idea here. Good propaganda (or good advertising, if you'd prefer that term instead) is necessary for this to occur.[/QUOTE]
What they need is a massive public relations overhall, that's all. Get enough popular support, and you've won. When you have a shitload of people on your side who sympathize or (better yet) outright support you, there's no way you can lose. Politics is all about public opinion and action that stems from it.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52170126]Correct. By focusing on the intrinsic traits of individuals and ignoring the delusions they spout (called ideals) I am focusing on the people who are prone to sadism no matter what they believe.[/QUOTE]
Prone? Or radicalised by different things. People are not born like this
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52170137]Prone? Or radicalised by different things. People are not born like this[/QUOTE]
Like I said, go read the books I stated as sources.
Also please read my project on verbal abuse. It demonstrates how verbal abuse has the same intrinsic patterns but expresses it self differently. Abuse is still abuse.
[url]https://www.docdroid.net/xKkjCeV/abuse-tactics-draft-1.pdf.html[/url]
Come back when you re ready.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52170158]Like I said, go read the books I stated as sources.
Also please read my project on verbal abuse. It demonstrates how verbal abuse has the same intrinsic patterns but expresses it self differently. Abuse is still abuse.
[url]https://www.docdroid.net/xKkjCeV/abuse-tactics-draft-1.pdf.html[/url]
Come back when you re ready.[/QUOTE]
When I am ready? Ready for what? I happen to have views that are different from yours therefore do I have "bad traits"???
[editline]30th April 2017[/editline]
You have also edited your post three times now I find it hard to keep up with you
[QUOTE=RB33;52169757]The police consist of the people and are appointed by them and their authority can be revoked at anytime. If one group thinks they are so superior than the rest, they're going to piss everyone else off and not receive support from the others. So it's better to keep working together, they can't survive on their own either. They can't bribe the police, since it's a moneyless society. The police will be among all the others being pissed off, because the food producers aren't doing their share of the work.[/QUOTE]
Except the police have the guns. They can [i]make[/i] other people support them.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52170158]Like I said, go read the books I stated as sources.
Also please read my project on verbal abuse. It demonstrates how verbal abuse has the same intrinsic patterns but expresses it self differently. Abuse is still abuse.
[url]https://www.docdroid.net/xKkjCeV/abuse-tactics-draft-1.pdf.html[/url]
Come back when you re ready.[/QUOTE]
Howard bloom you said before you edited your post? The same guy that wrote this [url]http://howardbloom.net/[/url] where it apparently tells "the inner secrets of the mosque down the street"? Nah I'm alright. The same guy who says obama is a racist and islam isnt a religion on youtube
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52170238]Howard bloom you said before you edited your post? The same guy that wrote this [url]http://howardbloom.net/[/url] where it apparently tells "the inner secrets of the mosque down the street"? Nah I'm alright[/QUOTE]
The other three are valid. I will make a correction. The only work of his I am familiar with is Lucifer principal. It rips into any type of fanaticism.
[QUOTE] I happen to have views that are different from yours therefore do I have "bad traits"???[/QUOTE]
That is a bad trait. Thinking any one who disagrees with a person has "bad traits".
For example how often you ve seen people call those who are not liberal as stupid crazy evil and insane?
The far right does the same.
Them liberals are stupid evil crazy and insane.
Different group, different ideals, different expression, same intrinsic behavior.
Might wanna read the work on abusive speech if you wanna end bigotry.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52170258]The other three are valid. I will make a correction. The only work of his I am familiar with is Lucifer principal. It rips into any type of fanaticism.
That is a bad trait. Thinking any one who disagrees with a person has "bad traits".
For example how often you ve seen people call those who are not liberal as stupid crazy evil and insane?
The far right does the same.
Them liberals are stupid evil crazy and insane.
Different group, different ideals, different expression, same intrinsic behavior.
Might wanna read the work on abusive speech if you wanna end bigotry.[/QUOTE]
Will bigotry go away if I read it, or is it just one view? Therefore you think that your view is superior and a good trait?
[QUOTE=Luni;52170220]Except the police have the guns. They can [i]make[/i] other people support them.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and the armed populace can put them down in that case. Which is unlikely to happen to begin with, since the police are selected among ordinary people, not some extraordinary greedy different class of people.
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52170290]Will bigotry go away if I read it,[/QUOTE]
The better question is why are you not open to more interpretations of what is tolerance and compassion? Why is your definition the correct one?
I am using face punch to better express my self and sharpen my ideas. If one doesnt work, I make up and try another one.
[QUOTE] or is it just one view? Therefore you think that your view is superior and a good trait?[/QUOTE]
Any one who agrees with adherent of (state random belief) is superior and those has good traits.
Those on the right suffer from this delusion.
Those on the left suffer from this delusion.
Those who are atheistic suffer from this delusion.
Those who are theistic suffer from this delusion.
What is your point?
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52170333]The better question is why are you not open to more interpretations of what is tolerance and compassion? Why is your definition the correct one?
I am using face punch to better express my self and sharpen my ideas. If one doesnt work, I make up and try another one.
Any one who agrees with adherent of (state random belief) is superior and those has good traits.
Those on the right suffer from this delusion.
Those on the left suffer from this delusion.
Those who are atheistic suffer from this delusion.
Those who are theistic suffer from this delusion.
What is your point?[/QUOTE]
Me not open to interpretations? You were the one stating that by reading your work it would help end bigotry, implying that your view on abusive speech is the right one. You told me to "come back when I am ready". Ask yourself who is not open to different interpretations? I am trying to pick apart your point of good and bad traits, society plays the biggest role in shaping human beings in what they turn out to be
[QUOTE=RB33;52169757]The police consist of the people and are appointed by them and their authority can be revoked at anytime.[/quote]
the others might be able to say "i do not respect your authority" but it is a lot harder to do when they're sticking a gun in your face.
[quote]If one group thinks they are so superior than the rest, they're going to piss everyone else off and not receive support from the others. So it's better to keep working together, they can't survive on their own either.[/quote]
they might need support from the rest of the community, but the food producers would have a hell of a lot easier time surviving on their own than the rest will surviving without food. they could hold out quite a bit longer especially if they have armed support.
[quote]They can't bribe the police, since it's a moneyless society. The police will be among all the others being pissed off, because the food producers aren't doing their share of the work.[/QUOTE]
you don't need money to bribe people. you can easily use resources to bribe people. they could tell the police "we'll give you food if you support us during our strike". they might be pissed off enough to strong arm the food producers from hoarding food and keeping it from the others, or they might just be desperate enough to concede for a bite to eat.
i can only see communism working when people are not in control of production, as said previously. there are too many opportunities for people to grab power.
[editline]30th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;52170332]Yeah, and the armed populace can put them down in that case. Which is unlikely to happen to begin with, since the police are selected among ordinary people, not some extraordinary greedy different class of people.[/QUOTE]
they don't have to be extraordinarily greedy. all it takes is someone who is charismatic and ambitious to convince their closer comrades, other members of the police, that he is right.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52170394]the others might be able to say "i do not respect your authority" but it is a lot harder to do when they're sticking a gun in your face.[/QUOTE]
Well, then the militia can point a gun in return. The community at large won't tolerate tyrrany.
[QUOTE]they might need support from the rest of the community, but the food producers would have a hell of a lot easier time surviving on their own than the rest will surviving without food. they could hold out quite a bit longer especially if they have armed support.[/QUOTE]
The food producers are working on public property, they can have their jobs taken from them, if they refuse to actually contribute to society. When everything is shared, there is no time for selfishness.
[QUOTE]you don't need money to bribe people. you can easily use resources to bribe people. they could tell the police "we'll give you food if you support us during our strike". they might be pissed off enough to strong arm the food producers from hoarding food and keeping it from the others, or they might just be desperate enough to concede for a bite to eat.[/QUOTE]
They don't own these resources to begin with and can't simply give it away, as if it were theirs.
[QUOTE]i can only see communism working [B]when people are not in control[/B] of production, as said previously. there are too many opportunities for people to grab power.[/QUOTE]
So not even capitalism works, as in also relies on people controlling production?
[QUOTE=RB33;52170486]Well, then the militia can point a gun in return. The community at large won't tolerate tyrrany.
The food producers are working on public property, they can have their jobs taken from them, if they refuse to actually contribute to society. When everything is shared, there is no time for selfishness.
They don't own these resources to begin with and can't simply give it away, as if it were theirs.
So not even capitalism works, as in also relies on people controlling production?[/QUOTE]
Like I said, communism would work in a transhuman scenario where we are a borg like species or some sort of mental collective. I cant see it working any other way.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52170531]Like I said, communism would work in a transhuman scenario where we are a borg like species or some sort of mental collective. I cant see it working any other way.[/QUOTE]
We're setting an incredibly low bar for ourselves if we believe ourselves to be so stupid that we need to be like the borg to be able work together. I refuse to believe that we are that stupid, just look at the progress humanity has achieved through cooperation.
[QUOTE=RB33;52170546]We're setting an incredibly low bar for ourselves if we believe ourselves to be so stupid that we to be like the borg to be able work together. I refuse to believe that we are that stupid, just look what progress we achieved through cooperation.[/QUOTE]
Stupid? I am not saying that. Let say you and I are part of a collective mind. Individuals some what but are psychically "melded".
In such a situation, if you felt hunger, I would feel it as well. Your needs would become my needs.
Right now? I could care if you re in trouble right now but that would be based on social conditioning and personal traits. As long there is a sense of being separate, when it comes down to a you or me situation, I most likely would choose me. You could be currently border line starving and I won't feel a damn thing. Thus won't care.
Sure we can cooperate as a species, but the current means is inefficient. A group of humans which had a collective mind of sorts would be far more efficient at getting stuff done.
[QUOTE=Govna;52170136]It's not really pointless to have a movement that is directly opposed to fascism. Yes, most people are probably against racism or fascism as it is. The problem though is that this doesn't do any good in terms of combatting fascistic and racist movements; if we as opponents of these things are not organized, we can't effectively fight them whenever they start causing problems in the public sphere of life. And they frequently do. Here as of late (since the inaugaration), they've gotten braver than usual.
[/QUOTE]
Believe me, I hate fascists with as much of a passion as the next guy, but fighting for the sake of fighting doesn't accomplish anything. There needs to be an end goal that prevents fascism from rising again. Society needs to be restructured in such a manner that fascism becomes obsolete, if not completely unpalatable. This can be accomplished by organising with like minded folk, implementing local level changes that can prove to the larger society that these reforms have value, and are worth implementing on a grander scale. Things that help to free us from need; things that help us become more active members of the community and give us a sense of investment in life. I guarantee you most of the people on both sides are bottom or near bottom or the ladder workers that probably have a dim outlook on life for a good fucken reason, because society in its current status is just too flawed to be acceptable. Destroy fascism to your hearts content, I wholly encourage it, but you have to help build something new in its place that outdoes it, and makes people move away and stay away from fascism for good.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
